JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard Shri V.D. Sapkal, learned A.P.P. for the State, Shri R.R. Mantri, learned Counsel for the first informant and Shri S.C. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for he original accused Santosh, Anand and Madhav.

2. The first informant who happens to be the father of deceased Ramesh, has filed Criminal Application No. 2312 of 1999 for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused Santosh, Anand and Madhav. Similarly, the State has filed Criminal Application Nos. 2364 of 1999 and 2365 of 1999 under section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for cancellation of bail granted to the original accused Santosh, Anand and Madhav. All these criminal applications for cancellation of bail are in respect of Crime No. 179 of 1999 registered by Bhokar Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all the three applications were being disposed of by this common order.

3. The first informant Say Gaud Bhurewar is the Proprietor of Shivneri Bar. The original accused Santosh is the proprietor of Chandra Bar. Because of business rivalry, both the proprietors did not pull on well. On the fateful day i.e. on 27-9-1999 at about 10 to 10.15 p.m., deceased Ramesh along with his friends, left Shivneri Bar and was on his way to Pan Shop. The deceased Ramesh and his friends reached near the square. It is prosecution version that in all six persons including accused Santosh, Anand and Madhav pounced upon Ramesh. Accused Santosh had knife with him. Accused Madhav had also knife with him. Accused Anand had stick with him. Non applicant accused Keshav had a stick with him. Non applicant Prakash and Ashok caught hands of Ramesh. Accused Santosh caused a stab wound under the right arm pit of Ramesh. Accused Madhav caused incised wound on the right cheek of Ramesh. Accused Anand gave a stick blow on the waist of Ramesh. Ramesh was immediately shifted to the Government hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at the hands of the assailants.

4. Say Gauda Bhurewar reported the matter to police on the basis of which Crime No. 179 of 1999 has been registered. Thereafter the accused were arrested.

5. Accused Santosh and Anand moved the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded for grant of regular bail by filing Misc. Criminal Application No. 957 of 1999. The accused Madhav filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 916 of 1999 before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded for grant of regular bail. The State opposed both the criminal application for grant of regular bail very stoutly. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded by his order dated 22-11-1999, allowed both the criminal applications and consequently released accused Santosh, Anand and Madhav on bail. Certain conditions are imposed on them. They are directed not to tamper with the prosecution evidence and to attend the Police Station Bhokar on every 'Wednesday and Sunday between 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. till filing of the charge sheet. The charge-sheet is already filed in the Court.

6. The State as well as the first informant moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the accused Santosh, Madhav and Anand mainly on the ground that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded has used his discretion in an arbitrary manner. All the three accused have filed their affidavits in reply.

7. Shri Sapkal, learned A.P.P vehemently submitted that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary manner and, therefore, the impugned order of bail is liable to be cancelled. He further submits that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consider face value of the statements of eye-witnesses namely Balaji Ingale, Vishal Salunke, Laxmikant Alewar, Narayan Salunke and Venkatesh Bhurewar. Shri Sapkal, learned A.P.P. diverted my attention to para Nos. 6 and 7 of the order under challenge and submitted that the observations made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document